Sibley: Scapegoating Stephen Harper

“I hate Harper, I just hate him. He’s evil.”

Robert Sibley

Updated: October 16, 2015

Conservative leader Stephen Harper listens to a question from the media during a campaign stop at a steel manufacturer in Burlington, Ont., on Tuesday, September 1, 2015. Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press

The words startled me. I looked up from my book to see two women – trim 30-somethings decked out in jogging outfits – sitting across from each other at a Second Cup table, the remains of chai lattes and muffins in front of them. As one woman picked at the crumbs the other continued her rant until she noticed my gaze and threw me a scalding, mind-your-own business look.

I was tempted to make it my business. I wanted to ask what the Canadian prime minister had ever done to earn the kind of vilification more often directed at genocidal dictators?

Prudence ensured my question went unasked, but I thought of that woman as I poked around Internet sites devoted to demonizing the Conservative leader. They aren’t hard to find.

Disliking politicians is par for the course. Every prime minister of recent vintage – from Jean Chrétien all the way back to Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau – was detested at some point. Trudeau was anathema in the West. Chrétien certainly deserved the “friendly dictator” tag for his authoritarian insouciance. Mulroney was never so irritating as when he tried to be charming. But none, as I recall, were reviled as individuals, much less slandered, with such vituperative labels as “criminal” or “evil” or “hateful.”

Related

Google “evil harper” and you get 20,400,000 hits in 0.42 seconds. Type “hate Harper” and 17,900,000 results appear in 0.74 seconds. Open some of the files and you find the kind invective that would warrant a hate-crime investigation if it were directed at an ordinary citizen. Harper is described as a manipulative Machiavellian bent on scrapping the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He’s said to be in league with the oil industry, a pawn of big business, the secret promoter of western separatism, an agent of the Republican Party, a stooge for Israel. There are even those who say he’s more of a threat to Canada than Islamic State. And, horror of horrors, he’s a climate change denier.

Of course, you also find the oft repeated refrain that Canada lost its international reputation on Harper’s watch. But, hypocritically, Harper is given no credit for the Reputation Institute having placed Canada at the top of its annual list of most trusted, admired and respected nations in the world for half of that watch, including four years in the No. 1 position? Then there’s that old canard about Harper’s hidden agenda; you’d think after 10 years his critics would possess sufficient integrity to admit they can’t find one because there isn’t one.

These critiques, however, are mild compared to some of the attacks. Keep trolling the Internet and you find “artists hate Harper” and “elites hate Harper.” He’s “the master of hate” and the “crime minister.” To vote for Harper “is a vote for racism.” Facebook posts denounce Conservative voters as “ignorant, small-minded bigots and racists.”

To dismiss such rhetoric as extremist is not to suggest Harper and his government are immune from criticism. Cuts to the military, ill-thought immigration policies, muzzling scientists, heavy-handed control of public information; all this, and more, warrant condemnation. (One exception: Harper’s unwavering support of Israel.) Nevertheless, much of the anti-Harper rhetoric is so irrational, so unbalanced – and so personal – that you have to wonder at the state of mind of the attacker.

Several years ago Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunter referred to Harper Derangement Syndrome to describe those whose “ideological hatred (of Harper) is so acute its sufferers’ ability to reason logically is impaired.”

It’s an amusing idea but we do better turning to French philosopher René Girard’s “mimetic theory.” According to this theory, drawn from Girard’s studies of ancient societies and literature, we learn by imitating those around us, thinking what they think, desiring what they desire. (Was that woman in Second Cup really thinking for herself the full implications of hating someone, or was she just imitating sentiments she’d absorbed osmosis-like from others?)

This mimetic mechanism leads to rivalries and conflict. Without a system of restraints, the stability of the community is threatened. Accordingly, our archaic ancestors learned to maintain order through the sacrifice of a collectively identified victim – chosen, perhaps, because they looked different or thought differently from most others. Girard called this victimization mechanism “scapegoating.”

The scapegoat becomes the focus of communal hostility as mimetic, or imitative, impulses gain popular adherence. That person is then sacrificed to purge the community of its fears and uncertainties. People convince themselves through shared scapegoating that they can restore social comity.

Some may question the relevance of Girard’s theory to the modern world. But you need only think of the Nazi persecution of the Jews or Islamic State’s mistreatment of Christians to realize the scapegoating mechanism remains operative. This is scapegoating at its most barbaric, of course, but if the old adage that politics is war by other means holds true, then it is not unreasonable to regard elections as scapegoating at its most civilized.

Elections serve as a communal purgative, a ritual by which voters look for a political leader on to whom they can project their pent up fears and insecurities — Is the job safe? Can you afford to retire? Is war coming? Is the country changing too fast? – as they select another leader on whom they project their hopes and desires.

Stephen Harper is the scapegoat in this election. His downfall – should it come to pass – will be likened in some quarters as a restoration of the natural governing order. But any celebrations should be leavened with a dash of humility. Anyone who thinks getting rid of Harper will restore social harmony among Canadians might want to read a little more Girard.

Post-sacrifice harmony is fragile. New desires bring new hatreds. Four years from now, you can bet voters will look for a new scapegoat.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.